Caremark Lewes and Wealden North

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The registered manager made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Support for people was person centred and focused. People, their needs, preferences, preferred routines, were all at the forefront of care delivery. Knowing people well resulted in staff being able to detect subtle changes in people’s mood and presentation and they were able to respond quickly and arrange any additional help or support that might be needed. A professional told us, “When Caremark have assessed our patients on the ward, they are patient centred supporting each patient with their individual care needs. They communicate between us, the family and the patient ensuring all care needs will be met.” Care plans described people’s personal history, family make-up, and previous employment and places lived. This helped create a picture of the person for staff and helped them understand some of their life journey.

The registered manager understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People lived with a diverse range of health needs. Most lived with dementia, some with diabetes and some had catheters. The registered manager worked well with families and other professionals to ensure that people’s diverse needs were met. The registered manager told us of positive working relationships with other professionals where timely communication resulted in people receiving better care outcomes. A relative told us about an incident where their loved one became unwell and they were supported with the correct medical procedure from the carer who was present and with the carer liaising quickly with other professionals to make sure the person received the immediate attention they needed. Another relative said, “When a new member of staff joins, they will bring them along and introduce them to us before they start working with us, it’s very good.”

The registered manager supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People and their loved ones told us that communication between them and the service worked well. A system was in place if a member of staff was late, delayed or was unable to complete a care call. People would be notified immediately, and the registered manager would explain what contingency would take place. There were no reports or records that indicated that a care call had ever been missed. Changes to the service including where there were new members of the staffing team were communicated to people. A relative said, “Yes, we are kept in the loop with any changes or developments.” Some people lived with poor hearing and staff knew to take their time and to speak clearly and directly to people. The registered manager was aware of the accessible information standards but no one required that level of support at the time of the assessment.

The registered manager made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People and relatives were asked their views on the service by way of an annual questionnaire. A person said, “I have completed questionnaires and they do provide feedback on my answers.” People could easily contact the registered manager or wider management team and during our assessment we heard conversations between people and the registered manager where minor changes to care calls were agreed. A relative told us, “Managers are good. We see them from time to time when they support with calls.” A complaints policy was in place and was accessible to people. People were confident to raise complaints or concerns and told us that they were always addressed quickly and efficiently. A person said, “I did have to make a complaint once, quite early on. She came out from the office straight away and was with me in about 2 hours to help resolve the problem. Thought that was a very good service.” Only 1 official complaint had been logged since the service started operating and this was a minor issue that was addressed appropriately within the timeframes specified in the service policy.

The registered manager made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. In most cases people, with the support of their families, could make appointments with other services and professionals for example, GP, district nurses or podiatrists. Staff were able and willing to step in and help if needed and occasionally this happened. People never missed appointments and the timing of care calls were sometimes re-arranged to accommodate this.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Support was primarily provided by families to support people achieve their goals, targets and ambitions. People’s needs were respected and reflected in care plans. People’s culture and any faith or spiritual needs were discussed at the pre-assessment and subsequent reviews and wishes were recorded and respected. One person liked to be spoken to and addressed in a particular way and staff knew this was important to them and respected their wishes.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People were given the opportunity to make decisions about their future care. In most cases this was left in the hands of people’s loved ones, all of whom had power of attorney documents in place. Some people had Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) forms that had been written and agreed between people and their GP. Staff had received training in end-of-life support but no one required this level of support at the time of this assessment.